Wednesday, February 28, 2007

not taking it kneeling down

Right. Am going to set the record straight on this whole 'UKIP disabled discrimination' bullshit. And my, is it bullshit. This:

I told the 650 people who voted for me that I would not stand again for the council but Ukip talked me into standing for them.

"Ukip withdrew its support when they found out I was registered disabled following a double knee replacement.
as reported in the Guardian today, for example, is a huge pile of steaming poo and lies.

What actually happened was this chap called Jack Biggs volunteered to stand for UKIP in the forthcoming local elections in Weymouth. He wrote to the branch secretary after he received an e-mail from the chairman, stating that because he had two replacement knees, and by his own admission was "useless" at leafleting and could not canvass a ward very well, that he could not be a full candidate as this required him to leaflet and canvass every single residence in the ward personally.

I have just received a letter from Vicki Sharpe, Chairman of UKIP Dorset which states that because I am registered disabled I cannot stand for the Council in Wyke Regis - where I had 680 votes as an Independent

And yet already Mr Biggs gets it wrong. He was asked to stand, but as a paper candidate where he would either not be expected to canvass every house himself, or he would get help to do so. Doesn't make such a good story, though, does it.

From the branch secretary:
Further to your email of today, I would like to set the record straight. Our Chairman, Vicki Sharp, did not say that you cannot stand as a UKIP candidate for Wyke Regis.

However, you said yourself that you are "useless" at leafleting which equates to being unable to canvass. This was discussed with Malcolm Wood (south west organiser) as mentioned, and in view of this, and the fact that you are registered disabled (i.e.unable) it has been decided that canvassing would be very difficult for you and therefore the best course of action would be for you to be a 'paper' candidate.

The ward offered to Mr Biggs had already been leafleted by both the branch chairman and the branch secretary, and they offered to help Mr Biggs with his electoral address which obviously still needed doing.

This did not meet with his approval, however. I wonder if it was because:

But given that UKIP are also mounting a campaign against my councillor daughter (UKIP minded anyway) I do not want to be either a paper or real candidate for UKIP. The last chance gone, I think I will emigrate

Yes, that's right. He found out that UKIP were standing against his daughter and so he threw a tantrum, and resorted to blackmail:

I have been special Forces. I am a very good friend but a very bad enemy.

If you stay on track, ignoring me, but trying to unseat my UKIP minded daughter I will take the story for the Echo, ref you do not want disabled candidates for UKIP.

This is not a threat but a promise.
One of the main local issues that almost everyone is against is the Pier development. My daughter was one of 8 Councillors who voted against this. And you have people "in droves" to vote against her.

Charming gentleman. He's standing as an independent now, apparently. Although when he spoke to UKIP about standing he wasn't actually aware of how many votes he had received last time.

It's just so utterly pathetic that someone would resort to blackmail in order to protect his daughter from not getting opposition in a local election. Surely he should be confident enough in his daughter and her beliefs that she can win based on her own merit? Or maybe he doesn't have any faith in her. If she's as stupid as him, that may be a justified concern...after all; who e-mails one thing and then tells a pack of lies to the media with something which can be proved as a fabrication?

Well, Mr Biggs does, clearly.
the e-mail conversation can be seen here.
And just as a further point: if someone can't walk properly or for long periods of time, isn't it rather a justifiable assumption that they would not be suitable for a role which required lots of walking for long periods of time? I would quite like to be a surgeon and get paid lots and help people, but the fact that I almost faint at the sight of blood and find casualty too much means I wouldn't be very good.

Does that mean I have a right to jump up and down and shout 'discrimination'?

No, it fucking doesn't.

I have since discovered that Mr Biggs ran in a previous election under the name 'Wat Tyler'. Hmm.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

No need to apply....

I read on the BBC that asylum claims are down by 9% this year.

According to the article, Home Office figures show that this is the lowest level since 1993.

Hmmm, am not surprised, personally, seeing that the year afterwards was the year where control over our borders was first given away to the EU by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary, and since then the Labour government have been doing a mighty fine job of ensuring that they hand over as much control as possible.

Brown, of course, wants to make people do volunteering work before they get citizenship, which is a step on from the tests they are supposed to do, called Life in the UK.

I called up the Immigration directorate to ask about who has to take the tests, and who would have to do the volunteering work if this idea is accepted, and they confirmed to me that anyone from the EU is excluded from these requirements.

Alas, the fact that 450 million people are excluded from this seems to have passed our MPs and press by. Does no one apart from me think that not only is it sickening that our poliicians can deliberately mislead us by making out that this will affect all immigration and also that is essentially imposes a colour bar on people who wish to naturalise?

The people from our Commonwealth countries will have to jump through hoops to come and stay here, but anyone from the EU can just wander in.

And of course, because we aren't allowed embarkation controls from transportation coming in from EU countries, regardless of whether people on that flight, or that boat originate from an EU country, we don't really have any idea who is in this country.

Meaning, of course, that we can't really do anything about illegal immigration.

Confused Britain

According to experts, 1.7 million people will have dementia by 2051.

Good news for our politicians: 1.7 million people might think that what they're doing is good.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Harry Pottering and the Ten Commandments

He hath spoken, and we must obey.

On Tuesday 13 February new EP president Hans-Gert Pöttering outlined his priorities for the next two and a half years. What will our institution be focusing on up to the next elections? The Pöttering 'ten commandments' say:

step up intercultural dialogue, especially between Europe and the Islamic world (use the EuroMed assembly for "peace and partnership")

Yet another pointless, politically correct quango giving jobs to people who should really restrict their lives to knitting. EuroMed is a monumental failure which is taking yet more and more power away from national governments, especially immigration. Trade, of course, has already gone tubby bye byes.

push for a new European constitution in 2009

See that, Tony? See it there? It doesn't really match up with your comments in the Daily Mail today:

The meeting on March 25 is nothing to do with the constitution. It is to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The constitution won't be discussed until after the French election

Right. That's odd, because the letter I have on my desk from Angela Merkel states quite clearly:

I intend to prepare the political Declaration to be adopted on 25 March 2007 in confidential consultations with Heads of State and Government and their close advisers. The same goes for consultations over possible ways to take the constitutional process forward....
followed by a 'tentative schedule for the consultations on the Declaration and the constitutional process:

25 March - Adoption of the Declaration in Berlin. On the margins of the celebrations a first exchange of views between Heads of State and Government on the constitutional process.

improve the EU institutions' credibility through better lawmaking.

How about no lawmaking? Let's face it, the rules are made to further the interests of those people who benefit from the EU, i.e the politicians and eurocrats. They make laws just to keep themselves in more work and give themselves more power. It is perfectly evident that the laws are badly thought out, and go through a process of amending which allows even the most retarded MEP to bugger up an already stupid suggestion. I know this to be true, for Liberal Democrats put in amendments which are passed.

strike up a democratic and effective partnership with Russia

Who have just stopped Poland being allowed to have anything to do with the 'Son of Starwars' because it is too close to them. Very convenient friendship.

remember that Europe and the USA are friends

Which just sounds like something thrown in at the last minute to keep the Brits quiet. But it won't wash, sunshine. The EU is far too socialist to 'be friends' with America, and never agrees with them.

don't let anyone deny the holocaust

Free Speech, anyone?
support Israel's right to exist and the Palestinians right to a state of their own

And keep spending tax payers money funding the terrorist organisation that is Hamas

help those who fight for freedom and democracy, like in Belarus

Unless they're Eurosceptic, in which case just anhialate them. And, of course, conveniently ignore that the EU is neither free or democratic, else the Commissioners would be elected and accountable, and meetings would not be held in secret.

make a stand against the death penalty

Surely this should be up to individual countries to decide? Oh, yes. Sorry. Forgot you wanted to remove the veto on Justice and Home Affairs and make it a full EU competence.

develop a common EU immigration policy

Although with Directive 2004/58/EC from the 29th April 2004 they have already gone most of the way. But here it is: the EU want to control every single aspect of immigration. Labour will say it's not true, and then start ranting about ID cards, the Tories will ignore it because it's politically inconvenient, what with they being the party who first gave away control to Brussels on immigration in 1994, and the Lib Dems will have a reception in the parliament with disabled people to celebrate what a wonderful idea it is.

And the press will probably ignore it, or write about it, but not mention that the three main parties are all in support of this.


Life is (amazingly) good

So, am fairly exhausted and looking generally rubbish through tiredness, but that doesn't mean that life can't be good.

It's still light outside, and I can see all the beautiful flowers in St James's Park. I have just found a strawberry chocolate in amongst the box which I was given to me by a friend, which did run the risk of being a coffee cream so you can imagine how pleased I am.

Also, I have just been sent a press release which made me howl with laughter, with the title:

Dementia must be made a national priority

A policy which is evidently widely successful, if you consider that our government and the shower over in Westminster are elected by the people.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

That press release

Well, ladies and gentlemen. Trixy thought that despite one of her contacts informing her that the Electoral Commission were 'a bunch of pedants' (or pendants, if Polly Tonybee was my contact, which she isn't) she had better get and read the press release from the Electoral Commission about them taking UKIP to court.

So, she did, and it's here for your perusal:

H/T The Spine

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Carry on regardless

In spite of all this heavy UKIP shit, I am off out to make the most of my dancing lessons at the most expensive restaurant in London, followed my favourite club. And I'm not paying, which is even better.*

Uncomfortable, yet fabulous outfit? Check

glazed expression and perfect makeup? Check

Rocks? check

And of course...

Gorgeous shoes which cost one months rent?

Check, check...

*someone will, though. Am not eating and running off

kicking the smallest boy in the playground

Am a little bit sick of all these 'UKIP finance' stories, but I thought this timeline in The Times today was rather illustrative of the motivations here:

Peaks and troughs

1993 The United Kingdom Independence Party is founded by Alan Sked and other members of the AntiFederalist League

1997 The party fails to win any seats in the general election. Mr Sked resigns as leader and leaves the party

1999 UKIP wins three seats in the European Parliament with 7 per cent of the vote

2000 Michael Holmes is ousted as leader in a power struggle and leaves the party

2002 The former Conservative minister Roger Knapman is elected leader

2004 Robert Kilroy-Silk joins UKIP. The party wins 12 seats in the European election with 16.8 per cent of vote

2005 Mr Kilroy-Silk resigns after failing to become leader

2006 Nigel Farage MEP is elected as leader

2007 UKIP gets its first foothold in Parliament when two peers defect

2007 The Electoral Commission demands the return of £367,697 donations

Translation: Oh, fuck; they're in Westminster. We never thought they'd do that.I know, we'll close them down! That way we can keep this wonderful status quo of useless, traitor politicians.

And for those of you who weren't aware of the other delight handed out by the Electoral Commission to UKIP:

The UK Independence Party's plight deepened yesterday when election watchdogs signalled that they would veto its plans to rebrand itself.

Which is odd, because when it was bounced around as an idea, lots of people seemed to think it was a rather good one. Someone who wrote such an article (which I am not going to link to as I am rather keen on keeping my contacts) said that he had had four calls from CCHQ asking why he wrote such a positive article on the name change, as it was the biggest fear of the Tory party that UKIP do that.

Well, they can't. But I hope that they will have a new logo, though, and get a better website and engage with the new media because I personally think that it's vital in the 21st century.

The reason why they weren't allowed to change the name? Because some people might get confused between The Independence Party and an Independent candidate.

The Electoral Commission: Bolstering rock bottom standards in education since 2000.

Stop the world, I want to get off.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

EU Referendum

I notice from the Devil's Kitchen that our great Prime Minister has replied about the vote to have a referendum on membership of the EU.

Well, some people may have had an e-mail, but I haven't.

I'm not sure I have anything to add that the Devil hasn't already. I don't even think I would bother to tone down the language.

Blair is such a hateful man. He's lying to us, he knows what's going on. He knows that however small that 'mini' treaty is it only takes one line to day, 'all decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting' and then BANG! Bye bye Britain.

All these men obessed with size. I think it points to a deep rooted psycological fear that they are too small down below...

Can I just say: if you voted for this man you are a prat.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

How the cookie crumbles

Written on the side of my yummy biscuits:

Our all butter cookies are made by biscuit experts with over 100 years of experience.

Blimey. They're some old, old cookie experts. Maybe their pensions were done over by Robber Brown and they can't afford to retire?

Hope they don't drop their dentures in the cookie dough. That would be horrid.

Lord Harris of Small Government

Trixy was lucky enough to be invited to the memorial service of Lord Harris of Highcross in Westminster yesterday.

I sat there listening to people I was completely in awe of talk about this man, and how I wish I could have known him.

All the great lines I was told about when I was studying economics were by him:

'What nobody really owns, nobody really cares'

'If all economists were laid in a line, they would never reach a conclusion'

'the cock may crow, but it's the hen who lays the eggs'

and his comparison of the National Plan (which I can't believe anyone would actually think would work being 'like trying to make water flow up a hill'.

Described as 'A Liberal, but a sound Liberal' he was Head of the Institute for Economic Affairs from 1957 until 1987 and in 1990 was made founder president which he remained until his death. His leadership was at a time when his brand of free market liberalism was deeply unpopular, with the post war consensus happy to jump aboard demand side Keynesian economics, which of course proved such a disaster to the British economy.

He was also involved in the Bruges group and a committed Eurosceptic, with statements to the Lords like:

In an earlier debate, I ventured to offer some broad orders of magnitude of the opportunity costs that might be saved by British withdrawal. The figures were admittedly derivative, but a retired economist can hardly be expected to undergo the fatigue of original research in such a matter. Anyway, I suspect that hordes of experts in the Treasury could produce much of the data for which we are looking from their word processors in their lunch hour.

My first approximation differs a little from that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I start from a gross payment to the EU and its institutions shown in the Pink Book at almost £12 billion, from which might be deducted up to £7 billion, including the Thatcher rebate, which of course the French and Germans would like to snatch back. Then there are estimates of the total cost of the CAP, which range from £5 billion to £9 billion. Is it about right to put at £5 billion the higher priced imports that follow from the EU's dubious anti-dumping duties? Such outside "guestimates" would suggest that annual costs might range from £15 million to £25 million—a little short of the estimate made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. They are huge figures to set against the arguable political and psychological advantages of membership.

Rather than retreat into her usual charming evasions, would the noble Baroness, the Minister, at least acknowledge the desirability of a more accurate assessment than I have been able to offer? The stakes are high. The Minister might even avoid further re-runs of our unending debates.

But most of all, he was honorary president of the smoking group FOREST. One of my favourite speeches of his was this one, about a debate Liverpool City Council wanting to ban smoking in all public places:

My Lords, in what has turned out to be rather a grim end-of-term scrap, I cheerfully declare my interest as a contented pipe smoker of many years' standing and a former chairman—now honorary president—of the smokers' defence group FOREST.

Listening to these debates, it is tempting to resort to unparliamentary language about this gratuitous and time-wasting debate after Her Majesty's Government have announced a smoking ban. The obsessive, highly organised witch hunt against smokers—deaf to reasoned argument—reminds me of my early days as a campaigning economist. Then it was equally difficult to win a hearing for plain common sense on economic freedom.

Other free spirits this evening have rebuffed the spiteful attack on the everyday civil rights of millions of smokers and tens of thousands of pubs, hotels and restaurants. My single purpose is to assert the commonsense implausibility that so-called passive smoking can actually kill non-smokers. After much diligent study, I have concluded that all this agitation is mere puffed-up propaganda to punish smokers for exercising a traditional freedom—at their own risk. My smoke may irritate the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, but it cannot kill him or anybody else.

I wish there were more politicians, and indeed people, like him today. People who thought windmills were for tilting at and 'not to be stuck on the rooves of upper-middle-class houses in Notting Hill in the name of an inexact science'.

Well, quite.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Mandy says BOO!

Could this be? Has the great man seen the light? Could the UK Independence Party have it's biggest defector yet as the man responsible for keeping millions in the third world in poverty crosses the floor?

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Comic relief: I'm not laughing

I wrote some time ago about the pointlessness of Fair Trade juice: how, essentially, it is just a convenient way for the bleeding heart brigade to feel good about developing world poverty without actually having to do anything.

We are used to hearing about the hypocrisy of the EU: Glenys Kinnock and the Development committee cantering in on their white horses, promising to eradicate global poverty by next Thursday if we all attend their cheese-dip reception for 'lesbian equality officers in Africa'...

The parliament itself has now found one way of combating this imbalance by selling Oxfam 'fair trade' juice in its subsidised cafeteria. If I was a dairy farmer in the developing world, trying to survive when EU and US dairy subsidies keep world prices 34% lower than they should be, I would be grateful that three people a week were buying my products rather than getting to the crux of the issue.

More recently, my delight in finding some lovely sun blushed tomatoes which don't actually taste like bits of carpet someone has spilt tomato puree on has been hampered by a patronising little addition to the label informing me that 10p from every 'special pack' is being donated to Comic Relief.*

I've never been much of a fan of Comic Relief. When I was growing up, my father used to rage at the TV saying something along the lines of 'why don't they just put a load of guns in a boat and ship them over to Africa? ' in an effort to highlight that a countries torn apart by war are never going to develop either economically or socially.

That apart, if we really want to help the developing world, 10p from my overpriced culinary knick knacks isn't going to do much good.

I don't know how many times people actually have to say this, but if you want to help alleviate poverty, there's a rather handy trick you can employ.


It increases global parity. It allows countries to specialise in what they have either an absolute or a comparative advantage in, thus making global production both more productively and allocatively more efficient and shifting the global productivity curve out to the right. Everyone gets richer, albeit some at different rates to others.

And yet, we in the UK are still part of this hideous monster known as the European Union. A statist organisation which allows countries not to develop and adapt to globalisation, but instead gives them money when they are inefficient.

As I have written before,

Trading blocs are bad. They encourage protectionism and, particularly when they become political, non tariff barriers which people can't immediately see unless they are embroiled in the technical details of trade negotiations. We don't want retarded trade blocs, we want free international trade which exploits comparative and absolute advantage, shifts that global production possibility curve a large wedge to the right and which increases global parity. This does not happen with tariff barriers on shoes and health and safety rules imposed on barely above subsistence level farmers in Africa.

So all you people who are going to fanny around with your red noses, slapping yourselves on the back for being so caring and so thoughtful and really thinking that you are doing your bit to help out those less fortunate than yourselves, think again.

If you really want to do some good, help get the world's fifth largest trading nation out of the EU, back with their own seat at the WTO and leading the way in free trade. It made us rich when we did it unilaterally in the nineteenth century, and it can make us and everyone else who gets involved rich in the twenty first.

And there's a very simple way of doing that....

*Ironically, underneath this is the special offer price of '2 for £4' which does rather highlight the futility of the exercise.

Up in smoke

It seems that I am not the only one ignoring the smoking ban:

View As Web Page
From The Sunday Times
February 18, 2007
MEPs’ cigarette ban goes up in smoke
Nicola Smith

IT WAS a ban that left even the politicians who issued it gasping. After 43 days
without lighting up, the members of the European parliament have reversed a
decision forbidding smoking in their buildings.

Despite backing smoking bans in countries from Sweden to Ireland, when it came
to sticking to their own new year’s resolution MEPs proved that they lacked

A 12-member committee of MEPs, which included some smokers, decided that the
ban, which had been in place at the parliament’s premises in Brussels and
Strasbourg since the start of last month, was “unenforceable”. Politicians and
bureaucrats from Poland, Malta and Greece were among those who helped force the

Critics and antismoking lobbyists condemned the move as an “absolute disgrace”
and hypocritical when the European Union is promoting smoking bans across the

Deborah Arnott, director of the antismoking charity Ash, described the latest
decision as “scandalous”.

“There can be no justification for politicians to place themselves above the law
and it makes a mockery of the commission’s proposals for an EU-wide smoking
ban,” she said.

Smoking bans have been introduced in Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Belgium
and Sweden. France joined the smoke-free club this month and smoking in enclosed
public areas will be illegal in England from July 1.

The European parliament has long been a champion of the antismoking lobby,
hosting events and issuing frequent statements about the dangers.

However, senior officials said the U-turn was necessary after a revolt by MEPs
and staff who began smoking everywhere in protest at the restrictions.

“They are adapting the decision to reality. After January 1 people started to
smoke all over the building and we had more smoke and problems for nonsmokers
than before,” said one senior parliamentary source.

Nigel Farage, the UK Independence party leader, said he had been one of the MEP
rebels flouting the ban. “I have been ignoring it since January 1 and I have
smoked in more places than before. I don’t want to be told by PC people what I
can and cannot do,” he said.

The thing is, as much as I hate the smoking ban, Ms Smith gets across a very good point. That it's one rule for them, and another for us. MEPs who have been calling for smoking bans across the EU, and supported the health commissioner when he said he wanted to ban smoking across the EU, won't have a smoking ban in their buildings.

I don't want a smoking ban anywhere. I personally think that it's something which can be sorted out on a local level, for example by a pub landlords and the freedom of people to use choice to decide where they frequent. But I'd be pissed off if I were someone who was facing a massive loss in profits and possibly losing my job because of these fascist rules being forced upon us, yet those very same people did not have to obey those rules.

Saturday, February 17, 2007


My best friend is called Minge. Well, obviously he wasn't called Minge by his parents but it's his nickname.

I sometimes forget that this may be a bit of an unusual name, especially when I am in public, and today was no exception. So there I am, sitting on the bus back from Hell to Trixy Towers when Minge calls up about our plans for this evening. And I just happen to say quite innocently down the phone, "I can't wait to see my lovely minge again."

It didn't take long to work out why I was getting odd looks...

Friday, February 16, 2007

And another thing

Further to my rant the other day about the EU and it carrying on, guns blazing (well, the guns it generally makes the British wield) here is a wonderful post by Eliab which clarifies the situation much better than my frustrated ramblings ever did...

Those little listening devices always reminded me somewhat of the TV screen whatsits in 1984 - some twat trying to drill into your head their agenda for the next squillion years whilst their minions sit around applauding, like the spasticated monkeys that they are.

I await with interest the 8th March, not least because I will be in Brussels.

Latest YouGov poll

Shows that under the leadership of Nigel Farage, UKIP have doubled the number of people who are planning on voting for us in the next general election. Whilst there is still a long way to go, of course, it is incredibly encouraging to see.

I am most pleased about the Midlands and Wales score, which shows UK Independence on 7% and bodes well for our Welsh campaign where we are the only party who want to stop the hideous waste that is yet another regional assembly stuffed to the brim with people who may have trouble with their own shoe laces.

The squeeze question this time was about voting intention apart from the three main parties, which shows that despite many in the media, leaders of the opposition etc. trying to discredit UK Independence by ridiculing their sensible policies such as cutting tax and free trade, many people do support us and what we stand for:

So there.

Much work still to do, but it's all moving in the right direction.

Odd places people come from

Just had a quick look at where people come from to get to discover whether or not there is more to life than shoes, and one did rather puzzle me.

How did someone get from here to here?

Answers on a shoe box, please.

Shortest smoking ban ever

I see that the Sun has picked up on the shortest ever smoking ban. The bureau of busybodies in the European Parliament have decided that the total smoking ban in the Parliament should be dropped in favour of smoking areas where us smokers can kill ourselves in peace. Lovely.

Apparently it's because no one was paying attention to it. Well done those chaps! I'm doing my bit here in London as a gesture of comradeship.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Cameron's Caring Conservatives

From the Mirror:

Sick Tory Sack Row

A former Tory party agent claimed she was forced out of her job after being diagnosed with breast cancer. Rosemary Holman, 48, is Suing Tories for unfair dismissal, sex and disability discrimination.

Mike Broomby, her boss in Sevenoaks, Kent, allegedly made life a "living nightmare" with sexist bullying. Mr Broomby denies the claims. He told the tribunal in Ashford: "I was concerned about Ms Holman's health. "I sacked her when she failed to go to a medical examination three times."

The hearing continues.

Sources close to Trixy tell me that the medical examination he demanded was with his personal friend who was a doctor. She offered to go to a doctor independent of both of them, but Mr Broomby was not having any of that.


And you thought Bob Silk was mad....

Hot on the tail of the written question by Kilroy on Marks and Sparks mirrors as discovered by Eliab, comes the most ridiculous written declaration from the European Parliament:

Written declaration on the introduction of a standard envelope, with a single Union-wide postage rate, for the purpose of exercising the right to write to any of the European institutions or bodies

Are they not allowed to at the moment, then?

The European Parliament,
– having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. having regard to Article 21 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which entitles every European citizen to write, in his or her own language, to any of the Union institutions or bodies,
B. seeking to give effect to the right of every Union citizen to petition the European Parliament and to complain to the European Ombudsman, as defined in, respectively, Articles 194 and 195 of the EC Treaty, or to apply to any of the institutions listed in Article 7,
C. whereas most of the European institutions are based in Brussels and citizens living in Belgium can therefore correspond with them more cheaply,
D. having regard to the conception and perception which European citizens have of European citizenship and to the need to place access to the European institutions on a fairer footing,
1. Proposes that a standard envelope, with a single Union-wide postage rate, be introduced to enable the rights attaching to citizenship to be exercised on equal terms;
2. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council and Commission.

What happens if they write in a different envelope with a different stamp? Will officials in the EU not be allowed to open them, on pain of facing a disciplinary hearing? What about if the envelope is right, but the wrong stamp is on there? The mind boggles at the possibilities.

But hey, at least they are concentrating on the important issue. It's not like the EU are trying to take control of Justice and Home Affairs or anything...

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

My effort for valentine's day

What with it being the most romanitc day of the year, and me sitting on a sofa, partially pissed updating my blog rather than prancing around with a rose between my teeth, I thought I would do something towards the general amour atmosphere here in blogland.

However, I couldn't find anything decent, so I'll just shove this on...

Bon appetite!

You've been a long way away...

Took a break from watching the rather dull news and managed to catch the end of Brief Encounter.

I think that this is the most romantic film ever made. He may have been a poof, but Nöel Coward managed to understand women in the way that no straight man I've ever met can. And to have Rachmaninoff's Second piano concerto running throughout was genius.

So there we were, eyes glued to the screen as we were waiting for Trevor Howard's train to arrive on the platform for the last time when my (male) colleague shouts out:

"Why don't they just get a hotel room and shag"

Because then it would just be the same old, same old tat which is churned out and forgotten. You know the kind; He's some power hungry, successful and yet emotionally retarded business man and she's the plain secretary (by 'plain' I mean that she wears glasses but it tall and willowy with breasts like sleeping kittens)and they end up happily, and predictably ever after once the girls in the wardrobe department have done a make over...

And it wouldn't have lines like:

This can't last. This misery can't last. I must remember that and try to control myself. Nothing lasts really. Neither happiness nor despair. Not even life lasts very long. They'll come a time in the future when I shan't mind about this anymore. But I can look back and say quite peacefully and cheerfully how silly I was. No, no I don't want that time to come hither. I want to remember every minute, always, always to the end of my days.

Or make women all over the world sob and weep and collapse in a heap when Fred says:

You've been a long way away...Thank you for coming back to me.

I think I may cry into my valentine's apple which the fruit man on the corner gave me...*sob*

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Why is no-one listening?

I've been updating all my research material today from hansard, EU legislation and other committee papers. All of a sudden it hit me just how well the EU is winning their battle of destroying nation states and turning the EU into a new soviet style union.

Even the few topics I updated today made me want to scream with rage; rush out of my office and grab people on the street - forcing their heads over these words which are controlling almost every aspect of their lives, whilst they carry on in some ignorant daze.

  • How we dispose of electrical items

  • The Food Standards Agency being overruled in favour of an EU body

  • Our Armed Forces

  • The EU Constitution

  • EuroPol

  • The letter from Angela Merkel to hold secret meetings to keep the public in the dark about the Constitution

  • The transfer of Criminal Law powers to the EU

The list is just endless, and yet the front page of the papers and the headlines on the news over the past few days have been about the BAFTAS, Anna Nicole Smith, Robbie Williams going into rehab and some prat jumping out of a plane and landing in a blackberry bush.

I have the TV on all the time in my office and I see how many opportunities these news networks have to report on some of the big events going on which are actually affecting our lives. This week Westminster is in recess whilst over in Strasbourg the European Parliament is busy passing legislation on how we can dispose of our rubbish: something which may sound trivial but could result in our country being covered in incinerators and bloody wind turbines. Today we had the speech by the new President of the Parliament speaking about how he feels democracy isn't necessary and we must push ahead with the EU project.

Why isn't this a big issue? Why don't the media cover this more? It took me so much time to get the message out about the true reasons for our immigration being out of control, and yet the newspapers still let David Davis and Damien Green blather on about how the Labour government must control our borders, when it was the Tory party who first gave away the power in 1994! The same people who wholeheartedly support enlargement which reduces our influence in the Council of Ministers (currently 8%) and who wrote the report calling for Bulgaria to join the European Union. I suspect Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, the man responsible for this, doesn't dare mention this to the white haired brigade in Chelmsford when he's at some Tory tea party. Why does no one try to stop this hypocrisy? How will things ever change if no one tries to change it?

I get so frustrated sometimes I actually just sit there and cry. It's often the only way I can express the emotion I feel when I see this all taking place under our very noses.

It's the same impotent rage which has, in the past, almost driven me to walking around London with a free newspaper attached to my forehead to try to stop the endless bombardment of the gratis tat being forced upon me. "I have one already!" I cry. But they don't listen. And I'm afraid that people in this country just like the hoards of people who every evening stalk the streets of London with their substandard publications.

Well, I don't want to be the person who takes the free paper just because someone shoves it in my hand. I want to be able to turn it down, and I want them to listen when I say I don't want one.

Maybe I have trivialised the whole issue by comparing it to a struggle with a free paper, but at least people understand the frustration of that because they are exposed to it every evening. With the EU and the loss of our democracy, most people are blissfully unaware of what is really going on.

Monday, February 12, 2007

At least they are honest

A story I read about a while ago, but just didn't get round to writing about:

Barroso addressed the Hague last Monday (12th Februrary) and told the Dutch government they had "a responsibility to present a good solution" after the Dutch people said Nee to the EU Constitution. To me, this just indicates that the EU will not be happy until they have a new treaty transferring more powers to the EU, and that the Dutch people have clearly done something wrong by voting No.

He refused to say the Constitution was 'dead' and said "we must continue the institutional reforms as we will not save the EU with instruments of the 1980s'. (the Treaty of Amsterdam was signed in 2002 I think, so not quite the 1980s)

The Dutch agree with London and Paris that a mini treaty would be better, as then they don't think that they would need a referendum. This is even though a mini treaty would at the very least include an EU president and an EU foreign minister.

Barroso said: "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable." He said that any government considering a referendum on any new treaty should "think twice" about holding one, just incase one country said no.

When he was Portuguese PM he was pro referenda (knowing that the Portuguese would say yes and he would look democratic, I presume) but since 2005 he has been against them.

"I was in favour of a referendum as Prime Minister, but it does make our lives (sic) with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the Euro, do you think these things would have passed?"

He added, "If you have signed a treaty, you should also ratify it." thus throwing democracy to the wind.

Excuse me whilst I have a short rant..

It seems to me that because JMB realises that some countries will vote no to the treaty, they should not have the opportunity to. He realises that the EC and the Euro are unpopular and that people do not want them, so they should not have the option of having a democratic opinion as it ruins the EU plans. He also is against unanimity in the Council, which is required now, as it means there is less chance of radical transfers of power going to the EU, as happened with Justice and Home Affairs, which would have seen police forces from other countries and EuroPol, who report to the Commission, having powers in other countries.

It's a single minded bureaucratic machine which wants to power on to a political superstate without the inconvenience of asking what the people who pay them think. I tell you, if this goes ahead, I'm emigrating!

As a colleague wrote to me:

"In Denmark, it will be politically impossible to avoid a referendum, but if we vote wrong we are used to being asked to vote again."

That's the tough this about democracy. In referendums, the ballot contains both "yes" and "no" and it is tricky to limit the possibilities on the ballot paper to "yes" and "yes please".

I'm sure they'll manage it, though...maybe by having a Head of State dinner in Brussels where it will be decided whether all 27 heads of state have to sign the Berlin Declaration, or whether the European Commission President, the European Parliament President and the Council President can do it. That means that our future would be decided by a Portuguese Kilroy and two Germans.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Well, I will know before you, but I'll make sure I pass the news on...

See also:

Brussels Journal



Just the tonic

Am feeling a bit crap today. Too much work, not enough sleep, that kind of thing.

However, a quick read of the glorious prose of The Welsh Stripper and I'm definitely feeling more chipper (geddit?) and howling with laughter.

So thank you, Mr C Dale, for making my day better.

Price on another war?

From the BBC I see that America are bored with the Iraq war and are looking for a new place to play.

US officials in Iraq had said they had evidence that Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias who attacked the US military.

Doesn't this sound a wee bit like America trying to find an excuse to attack Iran as they are doing so badly in Iraq?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a huge fan of Iran and I find statements like:

Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran "shied away from all conflict"´

Apart from wiping Israel of the map

and that no peace would come with foreign troops in Iraq.

Which is not exactly "shying away" from all conflict.

Rather stupid, irritating and unnecessary.

However, when it comes to America's record with the whole telling the truth aspect of why they have to go to war: the WMD, harbouring terrorists, going to the UN and then ignoring them when they didn't get the answer they wanted, I just can't help but think it will all end in disaster.

Trixy's daddy says that we should just let them fight each other as that's the only way they will be happy. But I think he just wants to retire early.

It's never going to end, is it? I mean, how do you fight God?

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Camer-bis 'not a happy bunny'

Oh dear. Poor Davie-Boy. I don't normally think that someone's past life should play any part in whether or not they can do their job 25 years later, and I don't actually think that what Cameron did as a 15-year-old boy really matters at this point in time.

However, I find him such a smug, insufferable bastard that I did actually laugh at his misfortune. I suppose I was more likely to on a day when his worker-bees were trying to stick the knife into UKIP for no other reason than too many people were defecting away from the Boy Blunder...

Hope he's not huffing and 'puffing' about it all....

UKIP finances: setting the record straight

Poor Trixy was woken up this morning by someone informing her that the Sunday Telegraph had written that UKIP was being investigated for dodgy finances. I knew they were writing a piece; my contacts in the party had told me how shocked they were at how little the journalist actually knew about the funding of political parties. For example, he didn't actually realise that parties with MPs in Westminster are already on the public slush fund and have been for many years.

So, to set the record straight:

1) UKIP filed the accounts 6 months late, with the permission of the Electoral Commission, as the position of party treasurer changed hands a few months ago, during which time it became the end of the financial year. Both men were part time working for the party and full time chartered accountants. The new party treasurer had to not only file the accounts, but catch up with the party records from the previous administration in a very short space of time and run his business during the busiest time.

2) Most of the financing for UKIP, particularly during elections, comes from individials. As the paper admits, a party does not have to register donations from individuals to the party if they are under £5000 or to regional offices if they are under £1000. UKIP is a grass roots party. People give us whatever they can afford, whether it be £5 or £100 or £10000. They do this because they genuinely believe in what the party stands for. The only personal gain they stand to make that there will be a political party in this country who believes in Independence.

There is the incentive in larger parties for people to give huge amounts of money because, as we have seen with the 'loans for peerages', they could stand to benefit on a personal level. That is not a view people take with UKIP. They give what they can to free Britain from the constraints of the EU and our statist government. The journalists should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for attacking those well meaning people for doing something they believe in.

For instance, Ukip's south-east office received donations of £291,000 in 2004, more than twice as much as the party's head office. Yet some £280,000 did not need to be declared because it consisted of individual donations of less than £1,000 each.

Notice that? They didn't need to. That's not UKIP making up the rules, or breaking the rules. That's the party following the rules and being different from others because it has the support of normal, everyday people.

2004: European Election time. If you want out of the EU, who would you donate some money to? Labour, Lib Dems? The Tories?

No, you'd donate it to UKIP because they are the only party who wants to restore Independence to Britain. And they did, in their thousands because they wanted to, and they felt they needed to and consequently, we beat the Lib Dems into third place.

The Sunday Cameron may not like that (they did, after all, censure Booker who is the paper's best journalist) but it's true. UKIP doesn't have lobotomised, tribal followers. It is supported by people who care deeply and passionately about this country and if the Sunday Cameron thinks this is some kind of financial irregularity, then that says far more about them than it does about UKIP.

3) Investigations by the Electoral Commission.

Yes, these were things like 'can you clarify the post code of x as we don't have them registered at that address.



Friday, February 09, 2007

Put the kettle on

Oh, no, don't bother. I can't have a cup of Earl Grey anymore...

For almost 200 years, it has been the preferred drink of British polite society. But now the distinct taste of Earl Grey tea is under threat from meddling Brussels bureaucrats. Producers of the citrus fruit bergamot, which gives the blend its unique flavour, say they cannot afford to obey health and safety rules which will become law this year.

Under the regulations, bergamot oil, which is mainly produced for perfume, is classified as potentially dangerous and must be tested and resisted with the European Chemicals Agency. But owners of the small family-run farms in southern Italy, where the fruit is almost exclusively produced, say they will be ruined by the extra £35,000 cost, so will grow something else instead.

That would be the fantastic REACh Directive, which is supposed to ensure that us poor 'EU citizens' don't get killed by them nasty chemicals companies? The same directive which stopped someone in the West Midlands using pepper as a pesticide because it hadn't been tested to make sure it was safe for humans?

BIRMINGHAM MEP Mike Nattrass is determined to prove there are no flies on him by rallying against a "barmy" EU directive outlawing pepper from insect traps.

And the UKIP MEP is determined to show that the issue is not one to be sneezed at claiming that jobs could be lost if the pepper problem is not addressed.

Milled pepper is used in traps to prevent insects from clinging to a smooth surface, so that they fall into a catchment area.

The process is non-toxic to humans but small companies wanting to use pepper in several industrial products will now have to fork out £89,000 to get the age old powder passed by EU safety inspectors.

The Aston businesss-man said: "The EU should have kept their traps shut about this because it amounts to an assault on pepper for no reason."

"Small companies in Birmingham and throughout the country will suffer and it is just barmy.

"When humans eat pepper it is ok but when its used in insect traps it has to be pass safety regulations costing an arm and a leg which plays into the hands of multi-nationals who can pay for tests on their chemicals."

Of course, it actually has nothing to do with protecting people from dangerous chemicals, and everything to do with ensuring that large pharm. companies have less and less competition from small businesses and therefore keep supporting the EU.

It's also the typical law of unintended consequences: the minor metals used to make plasma screen TVs for example, will be far more costly to produce, and thus the cost of your nice TV goes up.

Should we be suprised, therefore, that the Boy Blunder ordered his MEPs to change their stance and vote for it?

David Cameron pressurised his party's representatives in the European Parliament to vote in favour of sweeping new environmental regulations, despite the MEPs' concerns about the impact on British business and jobs.

Several Tory MEPs were worried about the effects of an incoming law to crack down on dangerous chemicals. Their concern about the legislation, known as REACH, was that it could put too onerous a burden on companies, forcing them to move to countries such as India.

Yet in a vote on October 10, Tory MEPs backed a crucial part of REACH, which obliges companies to replace dangerous chemicals with safer ones where they exist. It is understood the change of position came after members of Mr Cameron's staff discussed REACH with the MEPs at the party conference.

I guess not. After all, one of the organisations lobbying massively for a hard core piece of legislation was the WWF, who, of course, organised Cameron's trip to that bloody iceberg...

Enlargement: when will it stop?

Having a quick look through Hansard today I found a question asking if the EU actually has any boundaries for enlargement. It's a relevant point, especially since the more countries who join the EU, the less power indiviual nations have to decide EU legislation, which supercedes national law, and also the more money they have to contribute to fund these much poorer countries. Let's have a look at the debate, shall we?

EU: Enlargement

Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:In the light of the call by the Minister for Europe, Geoff Hoon, speaking at the Fabian Society on 24 January, for Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia and Azerbaijan to be considered for European Union membership, whether they have made an assessment of how far east and south the boundaries of the European Union should extend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union states that any European country may apply for membership if it respects the principles of liberty,
democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. The Government believe that enlargement has proved our strongest tool for spreading stability and prosperity in Europe and that it is right to keep open the possibility of eventual membership for the European countries to the east and south of the EU, provided that they meet the membership conditions. My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe, Geoff Hoon, did not say that those countries should be “considered for EU membership”.

Well, that's nice to know.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Freedom to Choose

Eliab has pointed me in the direction of a pressure group I am rather keen to support:


And one political party has already signed up to support the right of publicans to have their own smoking policy, and of customers to decide if they want to go to a public house where they can smoke, or one where they can't.

Market choice, you see. Very clever.

Why vote UKIP?

Martin over at The Kitchen makes a very good point about why people can and should vote for the UK Independence Party.

Good enough for me, and it should be good enough for every Tory like me who ever trooped into a booth in Labour's heartland provinces and voted Tory in the full knowledge their guy wouldn't win.

Such a good point. Carrot-brained fools like the 56th best Tory blogger Caroline Hunt say people shouldn't vote UKIP as it will mean Labour get it, and obviously, even though we don't support the Conservative Party, we should do and we should vote for them.

Yet there are endless seats up and down the country where tactical voting comes into play in a three party system. Where voting Tory could have let the Lib Dems in, or vice versa. Do you think this stopped Tories voting Tory? Like buggery it did. And why should they? For whether Labour or the Lib Dems got in, it mattered not to them as neither were parties they supported.

Getting the link yet?

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Ignorance of the highest order

DK has pointed me in the direction of a post by the erm, Caroline Hunt about why people shouldn't vote UKIP.

Well, dear old Trix had to have a calming cigarette after reading it, such was the immense frustration it caused. It makes Polly's arguments look well researched and thought out:

So as I'm sure you've seen Liam Fox made some comments on GMTV this morning saying (essentially) a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. Now this is a subject I care about deeply. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone, anyone would vote UKIP at the next General Election. We have had a Labour government for ten years now. I must be right in thinking that there is not one member of UKIP who would like a Labour government for any longer. Labour are not interested in their views on Europe, Labour are not interested in their views on immigration, Labour do not support any of the ream of reactionary policies Farage has drawn up to try and increase the sham of suggesting that UKIP are anything other than a single issue party with a one issue agenda - to withdraw from the EU.

Now it is not Conservative party policy to withdraw from the EU. However it is not Labour party policy or Lib Dem party policy either. There are however Conservative MP's who support withdrawal from the EU. I'm not aware of any in the other two parties. All Conservative MP's are deeply concerned about the undemocratic, bureaucratic waste of money that is the current form of the EU. Deeply anti-EU MEP's like Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan stand under the Conservative banner.

So if you were UKIP's target audience why on earth would you vote for a party that has not and will not win a single seat at Westminster and will absolutely positively never form a government? Especially since by voting for them 8 times out of 10 you are reducing the number of votes for the only party other than the Labour party that can form a government at the next general election? Frankly they deserve what they get if they let in another Labour government that won't have the balls to stand up to the EU. However if they have any sense they'll vote for the only party that comes close to representing their views - the Conservative Party.

Anyway, I commented. Twice.

No, Caroline, I don't want another Labour government. I want a UKIP government. And if I can't have that, I at least want UKIP MPs. I'm not going to get that by not voting for them, am I?

If you can't understand why people would vote UKIP then it may be time to compare their manifesto with that of the Tory party.

I, for example, vote UKIP because firstly I want the UK to withdraw from the EU and replace membership with a free trade agreement. Once we have control of our own trade policy we can, either multilaterally, bilaterally or unilaterally embrace free trade. This has the benefits of increasing global parity.

I also understand that the way to stimulate economic growth is to cut taxes, as an increased marginal propensity to consume and invest increases the money multiplier. This is NOT the policy of the Conservatives, who seem to have abandoned any logical economic policy, and who also want to keep state spending at this unsustainable and damaging level.

I also believe in selection for schools and think that the reintroduction of grammar schools and support for existing grammar schools is vital for improving education in this country. I think that Head teachers should be freed up from being controlled by the government and should have control of their own school. This is not the policy of the Conservatives.

I don't think that environmental taxes are necessary. Indeed, I think they are a convenient way for our westminster politicians to raise taxes without any political opposition from within Parliament. I certainly don't think that we should be so preoccupied with an unproven theroy, which this fandango with climate change is.

I think we should have nuclear power. I think we should build more prisons.

As for Helmer and Hannan. Well, the fact that Helmer was thrown out of the EPP for doing what he was elected to do is illustrative of the true feelings in the Tory party towards anyone with EUsceptic leanings.

Helmer was given the whip back after he wrote a letter to Cameron saying he would join UKIP unless the whip was restored, so clearly he thinks that there is a reason to vote UKIP.

People vote UKIP because they represent the views of many, many people. And as it is their democratic right to vote for who they wish to, why should they not vote for a party which represents their views? It's not a case of only being able to vote for Tories or Labour. I actually think that Gordon Brown is more EUsceptic than David Cameron, and having heard him address the European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs committee, I certainly heard more statements from him to convince me of that than I ever heard or saw in 2 years of following that committee and seeing the true beliefs of the Tory MEPs on that committee.

As a last point Caroline, what do you think about the Tory MEPs helping to fund the 'yes' propaganda for the EU Constitution? Because they did....

Your comment that UKIP cannot and will not win seats in Westminster is rather confusing. Do you know something you're not letting on? Are all UKIP votes going to be destroyed? Is there a ban on UKIP entering Parliament? Or are you just copying rhetoric from your leadership who don't exactly have a perfect record when it comes to speaking honestly about any matters linked with the EU.

Withdrawing from the CFP and Social Chapter, anyone?


It's also a bit rich for you to say that: 'Labour do not support any of the ream of reactionary policies Farage has drawn up to try and increase the sham of suggesting that UKIP are anything other than a single issue party with a one issue agenda - to withdraw from the EU.'

That's a contradictory comment in itself. If there are other policies, how can it be a single issue party? And why attack Labour for not supporting them when Nu Tories don't either?

It's as hypocritical as listening to David Davies talking about the need to control immigration when it was the Tory government in 1994 who first gave up control over 'internal' borders to the EU, and seeing as the Conservatives want to remain in the EU where there is free movement of people within the bloc, they clearly do not want control of our borders.

May I point out on this issue that it was a Tory MEP, Geoffrey Van Orden, who drafted the legislation which allowed Bulgaria to join the EU. Tory MEPs voted time and time again to enlarge the EU in 2004 and again this year, and are in support of Turkey joining. They are also in support of the 'common market' which by definition is the free movement of goods, services and people.

So, basically, the Tories have the same immigration policy as NuLabour and the Lib Dems. They want the EU to have control. Tell me, if I want control of the UK borders by UK officials and I want to remove this colour bar from 'our' immigration policy, who else should I vote for but UKIP?

Tests for voting, it's the only way!

Monday, February 05, 2007

At least someone likes Blair

Sent to me by a friend...

"Of all the politicians I have seen over the years in my view Prime Minister Tony Blair comes across as the most naturally honest.

The impression I have formed of our Prime Minister is that unlike so many other past, and present, members of the House of Commons he doesn't think crooked. When he makes a statement he genuinely believes it to have a basis of truth.

He has me convinced that he is also a genuine nice guy, and his family appear to behave in a manner that supports my innermost feelings."

The man in question is, however, of dubious mental character. He has been sectioned at least five times, as well as imprisoned for imprisoned for wartime looting, torture, crucifixion (its true!) and gangland murder. And now he's a fan of Tony Blair.

A big round of applause to 'Mad' Frankie Fraser!

A wee joke

Tony Blair is visiting an Edinburgh hospital. He enters a ward full of patients with no obvious sign of injury or illness and greets one.

The patient replies:
"Fair fa your honest sonsie face,
Great chieftain o the puddin race,
Aboon them a ye take yer place,
Painch, tripe or thairm,
As langs my airm."

Blair is confused, so he just grins and moves on to the next patient.

The patient responds:
"Some hae meat an canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it,
But we hae meat an we can eat,
So let the Lord be thankit."

Even more confused, and his grin now rictus-like, the PM moves onto the next patient, who immediately begins to chant:

"Wee sleekit, cowerin, timorous beasty,
O the panic in thy breasty,
Thou needna start awa sae hastie,
Wi bickering brattle."

Now seriously troubled, Blair turns to the accompanying doctor and asks

"Is this a psychiatric ward?"

"No," replies the doctor, "this is the serious Burns unit."

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Lib Dems: Are they all mentally retarded?

I've just listened again to the Today Programme from Saturday with Nick 'I know nothing about International Trade' Clegg and Nigel Farage.

Is there a Lib Dem out there who actually knows what they are talking about?

Clegg, for example, thinks that being one voice in 27 is good for British business because otherwise America and China 'won't listen to us'. Listen to us on what? If China want to subsidise cheaper goods for British consumer then bring it on. If countries in the developing world use their abundance of labour resources to get competitive priced primary products then who are we to tell them not to?

Nick Clegg has not quite grasped that this 'speaking with one voice' crap is not actually the combined voice of 27 countries. It is the voice of a few economically retarded countries who have failed to get to grips with globalisation, and who hold back countries such as Britain as a result. This is why the EU now have a Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which is basically you and I paying for other countries not to have productive or allocative efficiency.

Moreover, soon our trade with America will be screwed over because the EU want to ban the use of non metric measurements in EU exports. Now, whilst people in the EU seem to have forgotten that we Brits beat Napoleon, the Yanks haven't, and are still using a proper system of measurement. We have a $73,682,000,000 trade surplus with America: up to November 2006 they had bought $49,212,000,000 worth of UK imports. I think that's slightly more important to maintain than ensuring that some Greek shoe workers get their siesta at lunch time and people still buy their (consequently) over prices goods.

So what of that 'British Bulldog Confidence' that Nick Clegg talks of? Well, I think that the BBC (oh, the irony)would be shown in the best light by the British people realising how damaging the EU is to our everyday lives, to our jobs, our businesses, what our children are taught in schools, how much tax we pay, who can come into our country, how we produce electricity and dispose of our rubbish, and repealing the European Communities Act than by sticking their head in the sand and thinking that we need to be in the EU to combat climate change, or some other pink, suede elephant.

Alas, people like Clegg haven't realised that statements such as 'the EU is the single largest trading bloc' does not make it a good thing for people who have actually taken the chance to study international trade. Trading blocs are bad. They encourage protectionism and, particularly when they become political, non tariff barriers which people can't immediately see unless they are embroiled in the technical details of trade negotiations. We don't want retarded trade blocs, we want free international trade which exploits comparative and absolute advantage, shifts that global production possibility curve a large wedge to the right and which increases global parity. This does not happen with tariff barriers on shoes and health and safety rules imposed on barely above subsisitence level farmers in Africa.

Go listen for yourself, and if you can last more than 10 seconds without howling at the yellow peril, then you are a better woman than I.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Last one, I promise

oh dear...

You May Be a Bit Dependent...

You're more than a little preoccupied with being abandoned.
You need a lot of support in your life, at all times.
It's difficult for you to survive on your own...
And you don't reallly think you ever could.


I have been musing over this for a day and have decided that I will have to ask my friends whether they thing this is correct or not...

What drink are you

I like these quizzes

You Are a Bloody Mary

You're a fairly serious drinker, who's experimented a lot with different drinks.
You're a drunk, but a stable drunk. You don't ever let your drinking get out of control.

oooh, a pointless quiz

Your Personality Cluster is Extraverted Intuition

You are:

A true wordsmith - a master of words
Original, spontaneous, and a true inspiration
Highly energetic, up for any challenge
Entertaining and engaging, both to friends and strangers